Thank you, sir.

Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand https://estore.aynrand.org/p/522/obje...

History of Philosophy https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America https://estore.aynrand.org/p/520/the-...

In general https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Indeed, it would seem he had some forms of philosophy ingrained in his desperate need to categorize everything. It seemed he had some strange concepts of how people interacted on all levels, and that was what he seemed to do: categorize everything into little boxes, what he could use, who was a threat, what was useless or neutral, and then tried to disposition accordingly. I think most of their failures were always based on bad categorization by him. Trump reminds me of that, as well as Rome and Alexander the Great.

I will have to look into Leonard Peikoff......thanks.

You were not taught it explicitly, but you, your teachers, your teachers teachers and so on were steeped in the basic ideas as underlying assumptions ingrained on an emotional level. Understanding what it is and where it came from is crucial. Read enough of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff and you will understand what the basic path required today is, that it is time-consuming, and hat there are no short cuts.

Hitler was no philosopher, but prominent party members were highly trained in the German intellectual tradition. It was a well educated nation with a sophisticated culture. Their philosophy is what made the political horror possible.

That is a lot of philosophic framework that I know I was never exposed to in school, and I am sure that the last 50 years didn't change much. So, if required for an understanding of an alternative path today, we are in deep doo.....

I admit to a base level of understanding in the deeper meanings of both parties. Although I cannot say I could find anything but manipulation in almost any of Hitlers statements, even his economic ones. In the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich I remember many references to how he used whatever issue was at hand (just as we see today) to twist into a "I can fix that, with you" message.

Ditto.

Translations of the Hitler speeches typically omit his explicit appeals to altruism. Read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels for the full cultural similarities. It isn't enough to dismiss the latest politicians as "Republicrats" and "Dumbocraps". They are the result of something much more fundamental.

A lot of people see that we are in an insane mess, but that doesn't tell them what to do about it. Not liking something doesn't tell anyone what to do instead. Not liking the results of a particular form of statism-collectivism doesn't say what is right, which is reason and individualism, not more experiments with progressively more intense statism-collectivism.

Promulgation of fundamentally bad ideas in the educational system is a lot older than 40 years. The European counter Enlightenment was imported into this country by intellectuals in the 19th century, leading to Pragmatism and Progressivism with a base of subjectivism, altruism and collectivism. Without understanding the rational alternative, learning correct history isn't enough.

Indeed, true.

Good points, I am hoping there are enough people left whio can still think and see how this is all an insane mess that both parties have created. Maybe it is the result of 40years of crapping up the education system, and no one standing up successfully to them as they nibbled away at critical thinking, history, and enacted their revisionist programs.

Very well written and cognitive discussion, and seems to be a good summary of where this all sits. I have noticed a distinct abandonment by the Republicrats in many of the previous positions to just a "counter the Dumbocraps" positions, which just yields more morass, confusion and opportunity to keep making up "stuff". I am beginning to think the Hitler Rants videos on You Tube actually portray both f them accurately..they are actually pretty hilarious, especially when Hitler wins the 2016 election....

Trump is not under investigation for any crime and there is no evidence that he committed any crime. Russia has been interfering in other countries for a century. That and Hillary's denial hysteria don't make Trump a suspect. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty and are not supposed to be maligned, suspected and investigated just because a political party demands it. (And why is Obama's known interference trying to defeat Netanyahu in the Israeli election not mentioned?)

There is no objectivity in this "investigation" mania at all. The whole circus of innuendos and insinuations makes no sense and isn't intended to, which is why Sessions rightly called it "Through the Looking Glass". And yet they have managed to create national confusion and growing chaos.

As Toohey acknowledged in The Fountainhead, "Don't bother to examine a folly -- ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

The Democrats, including the establishment media on a hysterical crusade to support them, have manufactured controversies to intentionally cast doubt and undermine their political enemies. It began when they accused Trump of not legitimately winning the election, blaming it on "The Russians", now entwined with accusations of an undefined "collusion" for which there is no evidence.

Innocent people are not supposed to be put through investigations, persecution, and exposes on whatever can be found on them and spread to appear embarrassing, all on the grounds that 'if they're innocent they have nothing to worry about' so 'it's for their own good to be shown innocent by an investigation'. This isn't supposed to be a police state. The FBI is not supposed to be the witch-hunt arm of political "opposition research" and more.

Yet these antics are fully compatible with the Obama administration abuse of intelligence and other government agencies to single out, investigate and try to find anything with which to discredit, persecute or bring down its political enemies -- which Comey subsequently continued on his own, including his now exposed personal tactic to politically manufacture the appearance of a need for a "special prosecutor" for which there was no crime to investigate. All of this exploitation of and political actions from inside of intelligence agencies are police state tactics, made possible in part by growing disregard for the rights of the individual and in particular for freedom from massive government surveillance practiced in the name of protection.

They want to disrupt people's lives and harass them into ceasing to function. They want to exploit vague standards of open-ended, overlapping laws designed to make anyone guilty of something, or appear to be, whenever needed. It's the chickens coming home to roost.

They are demanding "investigations" for the purpose of disrupting, harassing, and spreading suspicion. Their "investigations" are intended to create suspicion, not investigate objectively held suspicion. Trump's guilt in their minds is that he isn't a Democrat and he beat Hillary. He wants to drain their swamp. They want to create an appearance and equivalence of impeachment hearings.

Their idea of "independent" means someone outside -- preferably themselves -- of an elected government that is supposed to be directing government functions, including investigations of foreign countries. They want to take that over and turn it into an attack on Trump (where were the Democrats when Obama was in charge of protection of US security?). They want an official sanction of their propaganda in the name of "Independent Investigation" to make it appear credible, beyond what they can get from their own typical antics and the usual anti-journalism.

They want a moral sanction, which is why it was a terrible error for Sessions to recuse himself, helping them to create an appearance that he, not his accusers, have a conflict of interest. He is not the only one to have pandered to the irrationality in the hope of appearing reasonable, nor could anything he does ever satisfy them. In the name of "independent" they want to take over the power of government investigative functions they lost in the election, and Sessions and others of their targets have helped give it to them.

The "investigations" are intended to drive out their political enemies through disruption and creation of unfounded public suspicions to, by illegitimate means, undermine the government and prevent it from functioning, especially to limit reforming statism, until they can take over full power; in a word, it's a means of pursuing a coup.

Their violent street and university "protests" are only the beginning if they don't get what they want and aren't stopped. They need a weak, appeasing government lacking public confidence and which is not able to stop escalating violence.

The kind of extended, deliberately created chaos disabling a government -- with the support of the intellectuals in an ends-justifies-the-means mania -- that we are seeing is unprecedented in this country and ought to be frightening to everyone. Their drive for power has them so hopped up that they feel anything is justified to overthrow their political enemies, Trump in particular.

The current circus of irrationalism and growing confusion over "investigations" that make no objective sense is not an accident. Reforming government, and preventing further ideologically driven power grabs, requires and begins by articulating and explaining rational ideas. The creation of confusion and chaos is intentional -- statism cannot co-exist with a rational society in which people understand what is happening. That Republicans, and Trump in particular, are unable to rationally defend themselves -- in part because of their own indefensible 'me too but slower' statism-collectivism -- is aiding the decline. One cannot fight a tide of irrationalism, chaos and power-seeking with evasion, pandering, and a mentality of middle-of-the-night spurts of 140-character emotional taunts in "tweets" further diluting serious public discussion. The Democrats know that and are taking full advantage of it.

It's not that there aren't good ideas that wouldn't help if enough people were willing and able to use them, if they could be put into place at all, but it's not the solution. The course of the country depends on the ideas that people accept -- there is enormous 'data' showing that for a few thousand years. There are no short cuts. With growing widely accepted statist-altruist-collectivist premises nothing you could put into the Constitution can stop them without reversing the intellectual course of the country. That is why it isn't true that improving the Constitution will save us or is all that can save us. It's not that people who want the improvements aren't sincere or legitimately frustrated, but it's not nearly enough.

She did "make a lot of noise about both sides", but was tired of repeating the obvious. Yet she was always able to provide new and important insights. What she experienced in the Soviet Union was worse. She understood the cause and saw how and why it was coming here. Who can know what she would say now, other than that she didn't like to say "I told you so" because it means it's too late.

EWV, I cannot say you are wrong, as I have no data to prove it. I can say that from my involvement with the Convention of States, they make a good case for being the last gasp hope of pulling the plug on a lot of the crap the system doesn't want touched. I have also made a point of saying that term limits will need to be ever so carefully worded, as a corrupt SCOTUS will just let someone, who has expired their 2 terms as a representative, switch to the senate for 2 terms, and then back to the house. The idea is to kill of entrenched power and make it harder to have a crony collection. As far as parties go, I would hope a new party, with a fair and equitable platform that is committed to cutting government to it's barest size, would draw all the people who currently are unhappy with both parties. I don't know of a much better answer at this point.....

I would think if she were around, she would be making a lot of noise about it on both sides. She is lucky to have not have to see all this circus today.

Well, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. I do think the technology has added a certain remoteness to the discussion, that encourages people to say and do things they normally never would. Maybe we are seeing what they have been thinking all along..

Ayn Rand said she was fortunate that she was old enough to not have to see what was coming.

A Convention of States would not make a dent in this. The corruption and statism is everywhere. We all share the same frustration but rearranging the chairs on the deck for the 'states' is a hopeless non-solution that does not begin to address the cause.

The same goes for term limits. Term limits occasionally block some particularly bad individual in power but do not address the cause of the problem and also blocks relatively good people from remaining in office. Since good people are in a small minority and the rest are easily replaced this is not helpful. It's not that politicians should be allowed to remain in power for decades, but that is secondary compared to the roots of rising statism.

Likewise for "new parties". Who would be expected to populate them? The same ones who are running everything now.

Absolutely. His first loyalty was to himself, then hildebeast

CG, go look at the article I posted and read through it, I did not get to all their background references, but it seemed they thought it through, and Comey does not come out of it well...

Go look at the article I posted where they address exactly why Trump did what he did, and it all makes a lot of sense.